Application of a methodology for the social life cycle assessment of recycling systems in low income countries: three Peruvian case studies

Aparcana, Sandra; Salhofer, Stefan

doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0559-3

Cited by 72 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The methods developed by Aparcana and Salhofer [21,22], and Foolmaun and Ramjeeawon [25], use a two-level scoring system for indicators ( Table 2). The former method is developed to assess the recycling systems in low-income countries [21,22] and the latter to compare different End of Life (EoL) scenarios for PET bottles in Mauritius [25].…”

Section: Methods Incorporating Type I Characterization Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some authors [19][20][21][22] suggested the use of indirect indicators because the direct indicators often fail to explain the complexities associated with social issues (In [20], the problem of using direct indicators are identified. For example: Is there systematic registration of relevant data (In [20], the problem of using direct indicators is identified.…”

Section: Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Dreyer et al [20], the indirect indicators assess companies' efforts of integrating managerial measures that are appropriate to the social issues, at three levels/dimensions of managerial measures [19,20] (Table 2). Aparcana and Salhofer [21] applied three indirect indicators out of 26 total indicators, but they only measured the formal policies paralleling to the first dimension of Dreyer et al [19,20] where the implementation and effectiveness of the policies are not assessed. Hsu et al also incorporated hybrid approaches where both direct and indirect indicators were used [23].…”

Section: Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited

Dan²,

Chen

2014

Sustainability

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:To promote the development of Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA), we conducted a comprehensive review of recently developed frameworks, methods, and characterization models for impact assessment for future method developers and SLCA practitioners. Two previous reviews served as our foundations for this review. We updated the review by including a comprehensive list of recently-developed SLCA frameworks, methods and characterization models. While a brief discussion from goal, data, and indicator perspectives is provided in Sections 2 to 4 for different frameworks/methods, the focus of this review is Section 5 where discussion on characterization models for impact assessment of different methods is provided. The characterization models are categorized into two types following the UNEP/SETAC guidelines: type I models without impact pathways and type II models with impact pathways. Different from methods incorporating type I/II characterization models, another LCA modeling approach, Life Cycle Attribute Assessment (LCAA), is also discussed in this review. We concluded that methods incorporating either type I or type II models have limitations. For type I models, the challenge lies in the systematic identification of relevant stakeholders and materiality issues; while for type II models, identification of impact pathways that most closely and accurately represent the real-world causal relationships is the key. LCAA may avoid these problems, but the ultimate questions differ from those asked by the methods using type I and II models. OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2014, 6 4201

show abstract

Section: Methods Incorporating Type I Characterization Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited

Dan²,

Chen

2014

Sustainability

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, there are also several studies utilizing SLCA to assess the social sustainability of recycling [44], packaging systems [45], and new technological processes (e.g., [46,47]). Table 1 reports a selected list of exemplifying studies performing SLCA on bio-based products.…”

Section: S-lca Applied To Bio-based Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within this step, the developed approach emphasized the importance of identifying, through the involvement of experts, the impact of (sub-)categories and indicators associated with the stakeholders' categories. Indeed, the identification of criteria for selecting these categories and indicators has been recognized as one of the most critical issues in conducting an SLCA (see, among others, [44]), which is also influenced by different perspectives and local contexts [49]. Taking this into account, the main indicators must also be selected and/or validated by the stakeholders (see [36]).…”

Section: S-lca Applied To Bio-based Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Life Cycle Approach as a Tool for Promoting the Market Uptake of Bio-Based Products from a Consumer Perspective

Falcone

Imbert

2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The sustainability of bio-based products, especially when compared with fossil based products, must be assured. The life cycle approach has proven to be a promising way to analyze the social, economic and environmental impacts of bio-based products along the whole value chain. Until now, however, the social aspects have been under-investigated in comparison to environmental and economic aspects. In this context, the present paper aims to identify the main social impact categories and indicators that should be included in a social sustainability assessment of bio-based products, with a focus on the consumers' category. To identify which social categories and indicators are most relevant, we carry out a literature review on existing social life cycle studies; this is followed by a focus group with industrial experts and academics. Afterwards, we conduct semi-structured interviews with some consumer representatives to understand which social indicators pertaining to consumers are perceived as relevant. Our findings highlight the necessity for the development and dissemination of improved frameworks capable of exploiting the consumers' role in the ongoing process of market uptake of bio-based products. More specifically, this need regards the effective inclusion of some social indicators (i.e., end users' health and safety, feedback mechanisms, transparency, and end-of-life responsibility) in the social life cycle assessment scheme for bio-based products. This would allow consumers, where properly communicated, to make more informed and aware purchasing choices, therefore having a flywheel effect on the market diffusion of a bio-based product.

show abstract